Majority Think Queen Should Keep Religious Role, 'Defender Of The Faith' Title

PA  |  Posted: 15/05/2012 08:20 Updated: 15/05/2012 08:30   PA

Queen Elizabeth

Most people in England believe the Queen and future monarchs should retain the title of Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, a survey has shown.

Almost three quarters gave their backing to the continued link between the Church and state, while 79% agreed the Queen still had an important faith role.

But a quarter felt the Queen and future monarchs should not have any faith role or title at all.

The ComRes poll for BBC local radio also found opinion divided on a suggestion by the Prince of Wales that he might change the religious role of the monarchy.

Charles has called for greater understanding between people of different faiths and reportedly says he would rather see his role as Defender of Faith rather than Defender of the Faith.

Quick Poll

Should the British monarchy keep its religious role?

VOTE

Half of those surveyed agreed that if Prince Charles became king his title should be changed to Defender of Faith, compared with 35% who disagreed with the proposal.

The research also found some regional variations in attitudes to the faith role of the monarch.

Almost a third of Londoners (32%) agreed that the Queen and future monarchs should have no faith role or title at all compared with 19% in the South West.

The National Secular Society said the idea that the Church of England was of "any real significance" to the vast majority of people was not sustainable.

President Terry Sanderson said: "If the Queen declares an allegiance to, and indeed preferential status for, only one religion - as she did at her coronation - then it renders everyone who is not of that religion to be less than full citizens.

"Prince Charles's suggestion that he be 'Defender of Faith' would be a step forward, but the ultimate goal must surely be for the Church of England to be officially disestablished and for Britain to be a secular democracy that includes everyone of whatever creed or none, without privilege or disadvantage.

"No head of state, be they monarch or not, should express any religious preference, far less be under a formal obligation to sustain one."

In their coronation oaths, British monarchs promise to maintain the Church. They must also be full, confirmed members of the Church of England.

ComRes interviewed 2,591 adults in England between 30 March and 15 April.

FOLLOW UK

Most people in England believe the Queen and future monarchs should retain the title of Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, a survey has shown. Almost three quarter...
Most people in England believe the Queen and future monarchs should retain the title of Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, a survey has shown. Almost three quarter...
Filed by Michael Rundle  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 112
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
20:26 on 16/05/2012
What?????....they royal families, down the ages since Henry 8th. have mock the TRUE religion and set up their own "cult"....NO, the queen is not representative of religion/faith or there would not be the exclusionary laws of other faiths in the national level of ruling!
lja/JMJ
17:31 on 16/05/2012
Why is there a queen ? why don't the people hold the power and not a fairytale story person like the queen...how can having a queen be a good sign of freedom...why is there a church of england...and how is having faith good...proof is always
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gloval14
17:09 on 16/05/2012
Just as I think we progress then I read this. What does spirituality have to do with politics? The Queen serves in a political capacity she should have no say in the spirtuality of her nation, this is why God sent us Jeremiah, Abraham, Isaiah, etc.
It is inconceivable to me how a human being would go to the Queen and not a spiritual leader for things of the heart, eternal life, etc.
It is very contradictory to see the results of people wanting the Queen to stay as head of the church, then we could say President Obama should be head of the American church, does that make sense to anyone?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linda Motley
NOW YOU'VE GONE AND PISSED OFF GRANDMA!
18:06 on 16/05/2012
Since there is no "Church of America" your question makes no sense. There is a "Church of England", established by a monarch which is why the reigning monarch retains the title. The Queen has no political designation, responsibility, power or allegiance - she serves all the people regardless of political affiliation. You obviously do not understand the British form of government, which is completely different from the US government.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gloval14
20:56 on 16/05/2012
You have not understood my comments, it doesn't matter this antiquated form of government should not have a say in spiritual matters, period. The Romans and The Catholic church have done enough damage and caused too many divisions and on the contrary of bringing people to God and together they are divisive, there should be no room for political appointed people and or any other but spiritual leaders as head of any church organizations.
12:21 on 16/05/2012
Who cares? (that's all)
09:09 on 16/05/2012
This survey is utterly biased and totally self serving. It was carried out by BBC Local Radio. They interviewed 2100 people. BBC local radio is aimed at a demographic that is over 50. If my own observation is correct it actually hits single or widowed women over 65. In other words people who have been pre-programmed for the last 60 years to know their place in society and to think the Queen is wonderful.

These are the kind of surveys often published by totalitarian regimes to prove to the World that they have the support of the people, usually followed soon after by an uprising. For the record the Queen may be wonderful but that is no reason for a state supported, amazingly privileged, wrapped in cotton wool, inherited monarchy.

Since when did it become the role of the BBC to undertake and then publish such statistically biased nonsense as though it were reflective of the views of an entire nation. The BBC as a taxpayer funded organisation is obligated by its charter to be impartial and unbiased. Where is the balance? This stopped being the case many years ago and no one seems to care or do anything about it. What is more interesting is that 25% of this pre-selected group did not agree.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gloval14
17:10 on 16/05/2012
Thank you for explanation now i see why the result. I think contemporary people who have seen the damages of having politcs/religion mixed would ahve a very different view.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Fourniadis
Spin this.
06:33 on 16/05/2012
Ok so explain again to me how the queen can be the head of a church that denies women leadership positions in the church?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Allen Reed Jensen
05:08 on 16/05/2012
I prefer to be led by prophets and apostles who receive direct revelation from God. I respect all people's beliefs and right to practice their religion but she is no more called of God to be a spirited leader than any other self made preacher and seminary graduate. It's tradition, not theology for most of these Brits, and I understand that.
08:56 on 16/05/2012
You keep your way of life,and we will keep ours.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Yvetter
01:30 on 16/05/2012
Shouldn't the Royal family decide for themselves what they are the defenders of?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DavidEvan
voted for the party of yes
00:59 on 16/05/2012
Queen takes bishop.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wonderwheel
00:37 on 16/05/2012
Well, the monarchy is a political atrocity and perversion. Any country with a monarch is only a second class nation one step up from feudalism..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Canadian on the border
03:50 on 16/05/2012
and ur country is doing so great
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Fourniadis
Spin this.
06:36 on 16/05/2012
Touche!
15:42 on 16/05/2012
Really? So which ignorant umbilicus did you spring from?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wonderwheel
19:36 on 16/05/2012
LOL! That doesn't even make any sense. People don't spring from the umbillicus. With thinking like that it is no wonder monarchy is preferred.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael D OBrien
We can be heroes, if just for one day!
00:08 on 16/05/2012
Question, when did Elton John become the head of the Church of England?
23:15 on 15/05/2012
The title Defender of the Faith was awarded to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X in 1521 for his book Defense of the Seven Sacraments. It was not awarded to the English monarchy but to the individual and, since Henry was writing in defence of the Catholic faith, no monarch since him (with the exception arguably, Mary I and James II) has had any right to use the title. But this is a side issue. The monarchy is an anachronism and we should have complete separation of Church and State, starting with the removal of bishops from the House of Lords.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Curtis Scarbrough
Willing minion for the feline overlords.
21:46 on 15/05/2012
Maybe as an agnostic I'm simply misinformed, but I'd always thought god was supposed to be the head of the church.
21:24 on 15/05/2012
It is not a question that should even be discussed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
llmitchellb
21:01 on 15/05/2012
I am an Episcopalian and generally think that I don't need anyone to defend my faith...especially not Charles.